Arguments for the existence of God

Cosmological

Teleological

Moral

Ontological

Aquinas

Aristotle

Argues for the prime mover

Everything is in motion

Everything is set in motion by something else

There cannot be an infinite regress

There must be a first unmoved mover

Nothing comes from nothing

The universe exists

Something must have existed before the universe which caused it to exist

This cause must be uncaused

Mackie: describes this as a goods train in which every carriage is pulled by the next, and God is the engine at the front

Argument from motion

Everything is in motion

Movement is caused by movers

There cannot be an infinite regress, so there must be an original unmoved mover

This is God

Motion goes from potentiality to actuality (Aristotle) and you cannot be both at once. There must be a being of pure actuality to begin the motion.

Argument from causation

Some things are caused

Hume's problem of induction

There could be an infinite regress

Why can't the world be uncaused if God can be

Russell: the universe is a 'brute fact'

Doesn't prove a Christian God

Anything that's caused must be caused by something else

There cannot be an infinite regress

There must be an uncaused causer (God)

Argument from contingency

There are contingent beings, but there can't only be contingent beings as this would cause an infinite regress

There must be a necessary being: God

Problem of a temporal God

Flew: if God is only there to set the world in motion, there is no need for a Christian God beyond that moment

Copleston: God is an external cause sustaining the motion

Analogy of the minstrel

Russell: the universe is a 'brute fact'. It simply exists, and we don't need to find a reason for its existence.

Russell: Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother — that’s a different logical sphere.

Hume

Fallacy of composition to say that just because everything has a cause the entire universe has one cause (Russell's mother-son analogy)

Why can there not be infinite regress? This fails Leibniz' principle of sufficient reason

Generally, causes resemble their effects and therefore it doesn't make sense for God to create something so distinct from Him

Why do things have to go from potentiality to actuality? Anything can cause anything

Problem of induction: there is nothing linking cause and effect

Kant

Criticises Aquinas' use of 'necessary'

Something can be necessary in 3 ways

Logical: The contradiction is inconceivable. We can't conceive of a 4-sided triangle but we can imagine a world without God so his doesn't apply to God.

Modal: assumes that God is the greatest possible being, so just collapses into the Ontological argument

Factual: something that is and always was. if God is factually necessary but not logically he might not have existed in any worlds, so this doesn't satisfy the cosmological argument

Pioneered by Aquinas, developed by Paley

Paley

Presents an argument from analogy

If we found a watch on a deserted island, we would assume it was designed by something intelligent due to its complexity

Behe: Irreducible complexity

We can extend this to biological things like eyes, so we must have an intelligent designer

A watch is clearly constructed. Some things in the natural world appear to have no purpose/be flawed eg. appendixes

Paley: even if we don't know how or why something was created, we still know it has a creator

Some things in nature don't have a purpose

Paley: just because we can't see its purpose doesn't mean it doesn't have one

Russell: we can ascribe a purpose to anything, but this makes us the creators, not God

Darwin: evolution/natural selection is how the world came about

Hume

The analogy fails: the universe is so unique that it can only be loosely compared to a watch.

There are many ways the complexity of the universe could come about that aren't God.

Considers why a Christian God rather than polytheism etc

The evils in the world indicate a less-than-perfect God

If human-like intelligence is designed then God's intelligence must be designed, creates an infinite regress

The bacterial flagellum is irreducably complex, and couldn't have come about during evolution. It must have been designed

Page: there are thousands of variants of the flagellum, so it isn't actually irreducibly complex

Kant

We have a sense of moral duty: we 'ought to' act according to our duty

'Ought' implies 'can'

We cannot reach the highest good on earth, as humans aren't powerful enough to ensure that the virtuous will be rewarded

We're all subconsciously aiming towards the highest good

Therefore, there must be an afterlife in which we are rewarded for acting according to 'duty' on earth

This must be facilitated by a being powerful enough to do this: God

Saka: ought doesn't imply can

The universe isn't necessarily fair— how do we know that the good will be rewarded?

Doesn't imply a Christian God

Mill: morals aren't instinctive but can be taught

Freud, Butler, Carveth, evolution all offer psychological explanations for morality

Anselm

Proslogion 2

Defines God as 'that of which no greater than can be concieved'

Once we have a concept of God, does He merely exist in the understanding or in reality as well?

If God was only in the understanding, He wouldn't be the greatest being as a greater one would exist in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

Proslogion 3

Assuming that God is the greatest conceivable being, it would not be possible for Him to go out of existence as something which continues to exist would be greater

He could not have come into existence either as something which has always existed would be greater

Everything but God is contingent, but God is necessary

Guanilo: if you have a concept of the greatest possible island, this must exist in reality. It doesn't, because the argument is flawed.

You could also have the greatest possible devil, who is maximally evil. This would create dualism.

Anselm: islands can only exist contingently— their existence is dependent on other things, and their non-existence is always possible

An island can never posess maximal properties— any quality it has could always have more. Does it have a tasty fruit? It could always have more! God is fundamentally different because his properties are necessarily maximal.

Descartes

God is a 'supremely perfect being'

Existence is perfection: a thing which does not exist would by definition not be perfect, as the existing version would be more complete